Is there a course of action that in one fell swoop, would address almost every major problem that the White House confronts in the Middle East? According to this op-ed article from China's state-controlled Xinjingbao [Beijing News], the solution is for the Bush Administration to normalize relations with Iran and accept the Clinton policies that it once rejected out of hand.

In Bush's speech to the U.N. General Assembly on September 19th,
he reiterated his preference for diplomatic means to resolve Iran's nuclear issue
and that the United States will not oppose Iran's civilian nuclear plan. But he
resolutely objected to Iran seeking nuclear weapons.

Bush has in fact softened his stance against Iran, but nevertheless,
he was called "The Devil" by Chavez and was criticized by Iranian
President Ahmadinejad.

Recently, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that 54% of American voters agreed that the United States should
launch military strikes against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear
weapons. But on the other hand, on September 16, the leaders of the Non-Aligned
Movement meeting in Havana issued a statement supporting Iran's right to the peaceful
use of nuclear technology, and believed that Iran's nuclear question could be
resolved through diplomacy and peaceful dialogue.

If one reviews America's present policy toward Iran, one can see
that its main objective is the downfall of Iran's current regime, and that the
nuclear issue is seen as the best lever for accomplishing this task. In fact,
Iran long ago made a very simple and direct request of the United States: recognize
Iran and normalize relations. To achieve this purpose, Iran, just like the
U.S., is using the nuclear question as a lever. During the Clinton era, the
nuclear question was never as intense or sharp and was almost ignored by the
two countries. But high-ranking Bush Administration officials were unwilling to
continue this, and jettisoned the policy of their predecessors, making a fresh
start.

Iran has been forced into a corner and the Americans, remembering
Khatami's reformist policies, have asked him to act as a go-between to address
the outstanding issues. But it is precisely the Bush Administration's policies over
previous years, of isolating and sidelining Khatami and his reformist policies,
which forced Iran's voters to select a hard-line president.

The Bush Administration's greatest concern is that if Iran continues
on its present course, there is precious little that the Americans can do. Instituting
effective sanctions against Iran, let alone unleashing
another war, will be very difficult. And it's not because Bush's Administration doesn't want to attack,
it's just that right now, it can't handle another war.

Although the likelihood remains slim, we must pay attention to the
possibility that Bush may yet emulate Clinton, and in his final years in office
ease relations with Iran. Because of Iran's role and stature across the entire
Middle East, when Bush entered office Iran wanted to reintegrate itself into the international community and favored an easing of relations
with the U.S.

There is little chance that the next U.S. administration will
begin a war with Iran. There is in fact a good chance that a new Democratic Party government will institute
a large-scale moderation of American policy. Even if it is a Republican administration,
it wouldn't be foolish enough to ignore the difficulties of its present
circumstances. The dilemma within which the United States finds itself must be
solved somehow, and one of the ways is to make use of Iran's influence. In
fact, locking horns with Iran is not in the American interest at all, benefiting
only a small number of special interest groups and conservative religious organizations.

If five years ago, starting in 2001, the U.S. had continued with the
Clinton Administration's policies, the terrorist ideology now confronting the United
States would be far less virulent and "9/11" would not have occurred
or would have been delayed; America and the Islamic World will not now be
confronting one another; the American and British publics would not now need to
live under such strict security; and America would not be caught in its current
Middle East quagmire. Furthermore, relations with Iran would not in the present
state of frigid stalemate and Palestinian-Israeli talks would have continued to
make progress.

What a pity that the U.S. government was replaced, and changed so
many of the good policies of the previous administration.

Presently, Iran has taken a more moderate position. But realistically,
even if Iran hadnt moderated its position and continued on a hard-line course,
there is nothing the United States could do about it. Since the Iraq War, the American
President and his secretaries of State and Defense have expressed many tough
words, but what good has come of it? Iran may soon harden its stance. Talks
between Iran and the U.N. are beginning to bear fruit, which means Iran could
persist in its strategy of stalling until the Bush Administration comes to its
senses.

The most effective way to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue is for
the U.S. and Iran to hold direct talks and to negotiate a normalization of ties.
This would help solve many of the important questions that the United States
confronts in the Middle East. Iran's influence on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria,
Lebanon and Hezbollah is well known. Many American experts have repeatedly
urged the government to change its policy toward Iran, and to use Iran to overcome
the many predicaments the U.S. confronts.